[NCUC-DISCUSS] Troika merge proposal
Stephanie E Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Thu Jul 16 18:39:31 CEST 2020
I certainly agree with that Raph, and one of our goals is surely to help
some of our members who would not have the opportunity to participate in
face to face global Internet discussions, do so in comfort and with
confidence.
cheers Steph
On 2020-07-16 11:29 a.m., Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix wrote:
> Hi Steph
>
> Much has been said already but I just want to comment on a
> specific point you raised, that is whether travel is a perk.
>
> One needs a lot of equipment and favorable circumstances for travel
> (the sort that in person ICANN meetings offer) to be a career or
> personal benefit. The more of this "base layer" you start with, the
> more profitable f2f experiences are; if you have none, then it is all
> burden/wasted time and no benefit. You can acquire some of this
> equipment and circumstances (thinking money, passport, capacity
> building, etc.) But we all start from different points, especially
> when it comes to where we grew up and what kind of socialization we
> received as children. Yes, it does go that far back: one that hears
> stories about mom and dad traveling abroad to business trips will
> necessarily be more "ready to participate" at ICANN than someone who's
> never had this kind of conversation. And that's just one example...
>
> The thing we need to work on is what can be acquired through the means
> at our (SC/Cs) disposal, while we need to remain keenly aware of the
> different starting points, and the things we cannot provide (like a
> better passport or a different socialization) Not that these
> differences imply a difference in worth or value at the individual
> level, on the contrary! But they do change dramatically how ready one
> is "naturally" to "participate" (for one's and others' benefit) in a
> f2f ICANN meeting. If our efforts are fostering broader participation
> do not take that into consideration, then they risk being fruitless.
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 12:13 PM Stephanie E Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
> Dorothy, I think you have summarized the real problem very
> succinctly. Further, I think the research that Bruna and Louise
> led last year, where we polled our members about participation, is
> largely in agreement with your comments, and speaks to the need to
> solve this problem some how and figure out incentives. We cannot
> rely, for our policy expertise, on aging profs and experts, and
> whatever students they manage to attract to do the heavy
> lifting. Because it is indeed heavy lifting....
>
> The EPDP is ending very soon (although it threatens to go on and
> on like the movie Rocky, with some of us diehards looking equally
> bloody). The next step is the IRT, which will be important
> because we have punted a lot of the hard stuff to implementation.
> Whoever goes there has to be one of those who were on the
> EPDP......which underscores the systemic isolation of those who do
> work on our issues. WE are now in a situation where there are so
> few folks engaging with the work that if you are the one on the
> team, you wind up writing the comments on the drafts, summarizing
> our inputs etc. Doing briefing notes for others has zero allure.
> Who is going to make the videos? I can imagine a willingness to
> speak, to summarize the issues when it is fresh in my brain....but
> don't ask me to take time out from all this to teach a class.
> Mentorship strikes me as the only way out, but the question is
> what motivates someone to want to be mentored, and what are they
> willing to do in exchange for it? Kathy Kleiman has mentored many
> folks here under the pilot program, I am hoping we can build a
> program based on that one but we need keen mentors and motivated
> mentees. Folks don't appear to like the idea that travel is a
> perc (yes, we do work hard at meetings) but in my experience at
> work and volunteering, attending conferences is a benefit and
> incentive, particularly when it includes international travel and
> plenty of social events and opportunities to make professional
> contacts.
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
>
>
> On 2020-07-15 5:58 a.m., dorothy g wrote:
>> Thank you Joy and Kathy for reminding us of the current
>> programmatic priorities. I have no firm views on the proposed
>> merger, I am waiting to learn more. I do feel though that it
>> may not be the right tool to address the real issue. This in
>> my humble opinion is how to encourage greater member
>> participation and grow our numbers. How do we get tens of
>> thousands of members to be active. Speaking from a personal
>> level and drawing on my interactions with others over the years,
>> members do not participate because they feel they do not
>> understand the issues well enough. What are we really being
>> asked to take a decision on? How can I possibly join in on a
>> discussion when I do not really understand where my interests lie?
>>
>> So the challenge is how do we communicate better on the decision
>> points. Do we ask volunteer researchers to set out the
>> positions so people can argue out the case with them? Do we issue
>> briefing notes? Short videos? Do we have policy debate groups? I
>> am sure some of these have been tried in the past and perhaps
>> other members have better ideas on how to do this.
>>
>> Some people have the advantage of interacting frequently with
>> experts in the field, many do not. If the group is reduced to
>> only those who deal with the issues as part of their day job we
>> will not be able to solve the workload distribution issues
>> mentioned in earlier mails even if we merge. I just looked at
>> the ICANN pages on the Review of the Rights Protection
>> mechanisms. In my view they would not help someone to get to
>> know the issues. By definition our groups are made up of users.
>> We must figure a way of encouraging them to think like experts.
>> It should be that my position on the various aspects of rights
>> protection mechanisms is as clear as my positions on vegemite and
>> marmite. How do we get there? A merger may or may not be part of
>> the solution. So let us address the real issue. I believe if we
>> get this right we will grow into a more vibrant community and we
>> will also inspire more generalised citizen engagement.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 8:33 AM Joy Liddicoat <joy at liddicoat.nz
>> <mailto:joy at liddicoat.nz>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dorothy, thanks for the question.
>>
>> There is always plenty going on and I feel somewhat guilty
>> about identifying priorities that I can't at this stage work
>> on! However, in the current work programme, my priorit picks
>> would be:
>>
>> * the review of the rights protection mechanisms
>>
>> * the EDPD on the temporary specification for gLTD data
>>
>> As for possible new areas - it seems to have been a while
>> since there as a proposal focused on access to knowledge ....
>>
>> Joy
>>
>> On 12/07/2020 8:08 pm, dorothy g wrote:
>>> Dear Joy, Please share with me what you find to be the
>>> priority issues right now. I would like another perspective
>>> as I sometimes speak on this topic.
>>> Navel gazing may help get more people thinking about the group!
>>>
>>> best
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 5:06 AM Joy Liddicoat
>>> <joy at liddicoat.nz <mailto:joy at liddicoat.nz>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Joly - good question, thanks. To be honest, I have
>>> no intention of responding to the debate at this point -
>>> the idea generates about as much interest as I would
>>> have in sharpening a blunt pencil and using it to poke
>>> holes in cheese.
>>>
>>> No disrespect intended to those who favour discussing
>>> it, but honestly, with all the other issues in the DNS+
>>> world right now, I would have thought better to engage
>>> in substantive policy work than on this kind of internal
>>> restructuring.
>>>
>>> I acknowledge that I say this as someone who hasn't
>>> engaged in policy work for some time (for various
>>> reasons) and also being from New Zealand, where we
>>> currently have the privilege of living in a Covid-free
>>> community thanks to our strong political leadership and
>>> collective community action. However, this does give me
>>> a different perspective on ICANN, gTLDs, ccTLDs and
>>> relative priorities.
>>>
>>> Joy Liddicoat
>>>
>>> On 12/07/2020 3:59 pm, Joly MacFie wrote:
>>>> I notice a deafeniing silence from the NCUC old school
>>>> on this topic. Are we keeping our powder dry?
>>>>
>>>> joly
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> Joly MacFie +2185659365
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> -
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>
>>> --
>>> Joy Liddicoat
>>> @internetrights
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> stay well, kind regards
>>> Dorothy Gordon
>>
>> --
>> Joy Liddicoat
>> @internetrights
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> stay well, kind regards
>> Dorothy Gordon
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20200716/02c8ed32/attachment.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list